On May 14, Jeremy Carroll writes:
>
> In
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0181.html
>
> DanC:
> > On closer examination of the comment, it seems
> > to be more about what goes in OWL DL than
> > what goes in OWL Lite.
>
> And in ...
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0174.html
> DanC:
> >Please help me find the relevant decisions
> >and/or find evidence that those implementations
> >pass some relevant tests and/or add an
> >issue to the issues list.
>
> In January, we agreed a definition of a "complete OWL DL consistency checker",
> if we had evidence that such a thing existed, and/or that more than one would
> exist in the future (and the WG was satisfied that they would be practically
> usable, rather than essentially theoretical exercises) then we could respond
> with a message that indicated that, and that we thought that that was
> sufficient to justify the DL level.
We could build an reasoner based on algorithms for C2, but as I
pointed out in earlier email, performance would probably be poor for
larger problems. Many people are working on the problem of developing
more practical algorithms for logics with oneOf - and the existence of
OWL DL would no doubt provide a spur to such efforts. It is, however,
widely recognised to be a very hard problem, and no guarantees can be
made about the outcome/timescale.
Ian
>
> If we don't have such evidence then I agree with
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0181.html
>
> DanC:
> > Mr. Merry's point, "We're concerned that OWL users should have their
> > expectations met when they use OWL compliant systems." seems well
> > made, no?
>
> (A danger is that if OWL DL is tainted then the whole OWL brand is tainted).
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>
>